Swing Low Sweet Chariot to be banned

First topic message reminder :

Swing low sweet Chariot being sung at games looks set to be banned, BLM are trying to stop it due to its connections to slavery.

This is madness. Just like trying to stop Delilah being sung at Welsh games.

Thoughts?????

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53096584

Freedom of expression doesn't allow someone to write libellous comments about others.

Oh well. Just playing the odds. Would love for them to grow a set and explain their view point.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh well. Just playing the odds. Would love for them to grow a set and explain their view point.

They don't need explain there stance and playing the odds doesn't stop it being libel.

Fair point. I'll go back and delete the offending comments after tea. We can't say what their reasoning for not kneeling is. It could be a number of reasons including racism but not limited to racism.

what a woke snowflake.

do you get whiplash from all the flip-flopping?

No flip flopping. Fair point that there may be some reason other than racism for people not kneeling. Not likely but there you go.

Here's some South African political context:

The current Minister of Sports is called Nathi Mthethwa - he's the fellow that kicked up a fuss in South African about South African players not kneeling in support of BLM. However, 8 years ago he was Minister of Police, and oversaw the Marikana Massacre where South African Police shot and killed 34 striking miners (33 of whom were unarmed, 17 of whom were chased down over the period of 30 minutes, and shot in the back of the head). He started kicking up a fuss about rugby players not supporting BLM around the time of the 8th anniversary of the Marikana Massacre...coincidence...a deflection perhaps...but also the rank hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the SA police kill civilians at a rate more than three times higher than the US police, and yet SA politicians have the gall to insist that South African Rugby Players protest against US police brutality, while staying silent on our own police.

I'm definitely against racism, but equally against empty virtue signalling.

Great news

It will not be banned.

Common sense at last.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54470507

TightHEAD wrote:Great news

It will not be banned.

Common sense at last.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54470507

Not banned, but hopefully not sung either!

It'll be sung with gusto for a little while as an act of defiance against this puritanical wokeness but eventually it'll be banned, like Exeter will be forced to lose the Chiefs from their name. It might take 20 years it might take 2 but if you can't arrive at the 'woke' decision yourself via intense public pressure and scolding, the authoritians insist upon it through banning. Make the most of it while it lasts because appeasement doesn't work. All it will take is someone like Maro Itoje coming out and saying they don't like it and the debate will be had all over again, this time with more fervour. This last 6 months or so have been like one massive A/B test for authoritarian 'cancel culture', to give this broad cult a name, seeing what they can get away with and what they can't. Rugby is relatively small fry at the moment and hasn't gained much attention from outsiders compared to soccer or other sports but if/when it does then it'll be banned. It's just a matter of time.

Itoje has pretty much said that already!

Yes but as I said it's A/B testing, he left enough wriggle room to back out and sit on the fence. If/when someone more confident with burning bridges - like, say, Itoje when he's nearing retirement - or who doesn't care about getting booed or bad treament from within the RFU on the back of taking on a woke crusade comes out and says it with no ambiguity then, depending on who they are, the whole thing is going to pick right up again. All it takes is one black athlete to declare themselves deeply uncomfortable - and therefore the singing of the song racist - for the emotional tone to become 'singing this song is part of and the same as white supremacy, lynching, slavery' etc and then the change will be made. And that 'argument' can be made for any number of grievances. Colin Kapernick was as much inspired by the fact his career in the NFL was on a huge downward spiral as he was a socio-political movement, after all. Once the 'framework' of protesting has been established then, unless the frame is changed, it just becomes a matter of time until the protest wins what it's seeking to destroy.

The BLM movement didn't occur because of George Floyd, they were simply waiting for something like his death to occur in order to implement what they'd been planning for a decade. Same goes for any 'ism' you can think of which has piggybacked on woke culture over the same time period.

This is an 'issue' that hasn't been resolved in the slightest, it's just dormant for now but it will blow up again soon enough and will eventually be banned. It would make enforcing the ban interesting, of course! It's not quite like sectarian chanting and banning certain words in Rangers or Celtic songs by prosecuting people - but who knows, the law can be changed and that could easily be the avenue that those who are hellbent on authoritarian putiranism take in order to bring about the ban they crave.

He maybe left "wriggle" room because he knows that discussing this kind of subject requires a fair amount of thought and nuance. Just shows he's quite an intelligent and considered chap to be honest!

The way Exeter Chiefs rebranded always confused me (and why were they based on Native American Chiefs anyway???), why didnt they rebrand towards Chiefs local to the British Isles...like say Scottish Chiefs... we already have 4 players there, might as well encourage a full takeover

Of course, I was using him as an example, I don't know his views in full. He's at least intelligent enough to know where his bread is buttered, anyway - and that rocking the boat when you're one of the highest paid players in the sport, who priced out the French giants with his wage demands, would be a dubious decision and the opposite to Kapernick.

Now if Christian Wade had an axe to grind with rugby, which in many ways he might well do given his lack of caps...there would be the opportunity to cry foul yet also 'appear plausible' even if the primary motivation is selfish and based on reputational gain etc. If we're going to seriously consider erecting statues to players who weren't capped, and for the stated reason to be definitively due to the colour of his skin without a shred of doubt, then all it will take in rugby is a black player with an axe to grind who can point to the history of rugby (definitely a bit racist, from South Africa to 'banter') and look to gain a reputation and possible status post-rugby by sticking the boot in to something like Swing Low.

On Exeter, it's clearly their decision to do what they want, the campaign group against them is some embarrassing non-fan who similarly sees it as a means of reputational and career gain (good thing to put on the CV in certain sectors if you can point to a successful banning campaign, ideal for certain political groups). Monetarily it would be crazy to rebrand during a time when the sport is in financial turmoil but, likewise, eventually they'll probably have to. First the mascot, next will be the logo and name.

Anyone else recieve the history of this song on Facebook from the RFU. So basically I'm a racist if I keep singing it. Thanks RFU.

Critical race theory is poison. It's a duty to stand up to it.

rugby racing and beer wrote:Of course, I was using him as an example, I don't know his views in full. He's at least intelligent enough to know where his bread is buttered, anyway - and that rocking the boat when you're one of the highest paid players in the sport, who priced out the French giants with his wage demands, would be a dubious decision and the opposite to Kapernick.

Now if Christian Wade had an axe to grind with rugby, which in many ways he might well do given his lack of caps...there would be the opportunity to cry foul yet also 'appear plausible' even if the primary motivation is selfish and based on reputational gain etc. If we're going to seriously consider erecting statues to players who weren't capped, and for the stated reason to be definitively due to the colour of his skin without a shred of doubt, then all it will take in rugby is a black player with an axe to grind who can point to the history of rugby (definitely a bit racist, from South Africa to 'banter') and look to gain a reputation and possible status post-rugby by sticking the boot in to something like Swing Low.

On Exeter, it's clearly their decision to do what they want, the campaign group against them is some embarrassing non-fan who similarly sees it as a means of reputational and career gain (good thing to put on the CV in certain sectors if you can point to a successful banning campaign, ideal for certain political groups). Monetarily it would be crazy to rebrand during a time when the sport is in financial turmoil but, likewise, eventually they'll probably have to. First the mascot, next will be the logo and name.

I get the thing with Exeter and the use of "Chiefs" for the first team, in some places it's used as a friendly greeting as in "Alright chief", but the "native American" thing will be harder for them to justify as more US sports teams drop it from their imagery. Why they can't just adapt it and change the "native American" chief for a "Celtic/Saxon chief", which would be more appropriate to the "Wild West Country" image anyway?